Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I edited to clarify, the process of chambering/crown. The same parts are available to anyone yet some rifles perform better than others across a wider variety of ammo and lots.I don't really understand the question.... What process?
I'm assuming you are doing this purely for conversation sake because I'm sure Derek can easily answer your query.
But yes rimfire's seem to be choosey on what kind of ammo they like to eat.
My personal experience says that it might, but I don't have a wide enough sample size to support that other than anecdotal as there were a few variables at play.I edited to clarify, the process of chambering/crown. The same parts are available to anyone yet some rifles perform better than others across a wider variety of ammo and lots.
Even if they did, every barrel is different regardless of the chamber/crown.Nobody here has good sample sizes for this kind of (rhetorical) question.
For me, sample sizes for accuracy and velocity for a given rifle/barrel are decided with a minimum of 25 rounds, preferably double that.Nobody here has good sample sizes for this kind of (rhetorical) question.
We have more .22s being shot than ever before in the history of .22, how can we not know more and have answers?Nobody here has good sample sizes for this kind of (rhetorical) question.
Barrels are different from one to another but we have seen a trend over 300 barrels or so.Even if they did, every barrel is different regardless of the chamber/crown.
Barrels are different from one to another but we have seen a trend over 300 barrels or so.
Spot on, which is why I chose my wording the way I did. I had a lot of midas+ that would shoot basically the same one hole 5 shot groups in every barreled action we built and tested. Other lots will group similarly across multiple barrels we do. If it is a .2 it will do .2 across many, if it is a .5 lot same scenario. We have seen this trend over 300 barrels with various actions(vudoo, rim x, bergara. Cz, volquartsen summit). That tells me how it is done(process) matters. The feed back from good shooters verifies our findings.Are precision rimfire rifles ammo picky?
Yeah. They require the uniformly best made cartridges available.
No rifle can fix problems caused by ammunition
that has variations in assembly, components, primer/powder amounts,
chemistry or has been subjected to rough handling, extreme temperatures.
Asymmetric bullets and variations in center of balance
will affect how the bullet reacts with the rifling and atmosphere
after it exits the barrel. If a box of cartridges produced good results,
it would do so from any properly built rifle.
If it produces strays and vertical spread,
that'll happen also with other competition grade rifles.
No two cartridges that roll off the assembly line are identical.
No two boxes, bricks, cases of cartridges are exactly the same.
Variations in trajectories are caused by lack of uniformity, cartridge to cartridge.
Get a run of well made cartridges, similar in quality,
you obtain similar behavior and trajectories.
If you are sold cartridges that have issues with components/assembly,
it doesn't matter how good the rifle, the ammunition will cause problems.
Well made cartridges produce predictable trajectories
when used in any competition grade rifles.
Cartridge quality as it made, is not a constant.
Some boxes, bricks, cases will be better/more uniform than others.
Get a bad box, the rifle gets blamed for having a brand preference.
Get a good box, then the rifle "liked" that brand.
Failure to recognize the existence of variations in cartridge quality
and thinking that every cartridge is identical,
is responsible for the concept of rifles being "picky".
Uniformly well made cartridges will produce better results from all rifles
than cartridges with issues behave in those same rifles.
My rifle likes Lapua and hates Eley but loves RWS
can change with the next purchase of ammunition.
Now it likes Eley, loves Lapua and the RWS reeks.
Cartridge quality is not the same, moment to moment during manufacture.
Batch testing at the factory does not catch all the problems.
Welcome to the assembly line lottery.![]()
Does the process (how it is chambered/Crowned) dictate how a good lot of ammo performs? and I am speaking using quality match ammo(Lapua, Eley, RWS, Norma Match)
The chambering and crowning are only two parts. The round goes into the chamber and exits the muzzle.I edited to clarify, the process of chambering/crown. The same parts are available to anyone yet some rifles perform better than others across a wider variety of ammo and lots.
The trouble is the data is inconsistently collected and even more inconsistently analyzed. The vast majority of the shooters referred to are very casual shooters. The vast majority of results are little more than anecdotal reports, often tinged with misinformation and misunderstanding.We have more .22s being shot than ever before in the history of .22, how can we not know more and have answers?
Barrels are indeed different. But each ostensibly does the very same thing, which is to send rounds downrange with as much accuracy and precision as possible.Barrels are different from one to another but we have seen a trend over 300 barrels or so.
Agree - I've seen this with my lot-tested (Lapua west facility in AZ) Center-X. Shoots well in every rifle in which it's been used. Unfortunately:I had a lot of midas+ that would shoot basically the same one hole 5 shot groups in every barreled action we built and tested. Other lots will group similarly across multiple barrels we do.
Yes, inconsistent ammo is the devil in the details across all the testing in what may be very consistent high quality barrels. My experience with 12T was high risk, high return. My assumption is that well balanced projectiles benefited from the faster twist, but the few unbalanced ones in “match” ammo resulted in “flyers”. We see a similar situation with centerfire where 30-40 shot average group size or average distance from center trend towards unremarkable groups that most do not post online.The chambering and crowning are only two parts. The round goes into the chamber and exits the muzzle.
The part in between -- the bore -- also has a role because not all bores are equal. The bore is at least as, perhaps more, important, as chambering and crowning in ammo performance. Performance is not dictated by one or two parts of the trifecta.
The trouble is the data is inconsistently collected and even more inconsistently analyzed. The vast majority of the shooters referred to are very casual shooters. The vast majority of results are little more than anecdotal reports, often tinged with misinformation and misunderstanding.
More serious shooters frequently don't record or analyze results in sufficiently similar or uniform ways. Reliable answers depend on comparing data that is as much apples to apples as possible.
To illustrate with an example, there's little or no accumulated reliable evidence for the performance of fast twist barrels versus standard twist. There are anecdotal reports one way or another but little that's the result of careful testing under similar conditions.
Barrels are indeed different. But each ostensibly does the very same thing, which is to send rounds downrange with as much accuracy and precision as possible.
Trends seen over hundreds of presumably good barrels may suggest that similarities are the result of the ammo. In other words, when ammo is good it does well in many barrels. When ammo is less-than-good, it does less well in many barrels.
Because none of us have any way of knowing who is doing what behind the scenes. We don't know if one individual is cutting corners getting poor results. We don't know if one person is getting great results because they are simply getting lucky or flat out overhype-ing their results.We have more .22s being shot than ever before in the history of .22, how can we not know more and have answers?
The point of anything is to excel at it, sports, competitions, the Olympics etc are designed to produce winners, I don't find myself wanting to get out of bed to produce average results. I want to win by producing the very best possible. The guys winning at matches, finales, world championships do so because they strive to be better and work towards that goal. On FB (not on there anymore) I use to post pics of groups to show results not talk about them. I may need to start doing that on here,Because none of us have any way of knowing who is doing what behind the scenes. We don't know if one individual is cutting corners getting poor results. We don't know if one person is getting great results because they are simply getting lucky or flat out overhype-ing their results.
And the ones who stand at the tippy-top of the leader boards aren't sharing their secrets or telling others the shear ludicrous amounts of money they have been spending on spare barrels/guns/optics/gear, or extra crates of ammo, and training/practice sessions. When you find out you've been outspent by a factor of 10 or even 20.....you start to realize how badly some want to win versus those who think it would be kinda cool to win.
Just to add David, your dedication to precision has resulted in some very impressive groups at some crazy distances that most say can’t be done.The point of anything is to excel at it, sports, competitions, the Olympics etc are designed to produce winners, I don't find myself wanting to get out of bed to produce average results. I want to win by producing the very best possible. The guys winning at matches, finales, world championships do so because they strive to be better and work towards that goal. On FB (not on there anymore) I use to post pics of groups to show results not talk about them. I may need to start doing that on here,